Slashdot Mirror
SCO Lists Specific Code-Infringement Claims
mugnyte writes "Those tireless folks at groklaw have transcribed and published the documents from the latest IBM/SCO hearing. In it, the exact lines of the supposed Dynix / AIX / Linux logic are given. SCO claimed that Linux's read copy update, journaling file system, enterprise volume management system, AIO (Asynchronous I/O), and "scatter gather" I/O code had been derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx. Now we can take a look at what SCO thinks makes Linux an enterprise-ready platform started at 2.4, stealing away their market share. However, IBM released these things under the GPL ... so what license did IBM really have from SCO to do this? Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"
Well, first of all, I think that if Darl did know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.
Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.
Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said he knew SCO code was there.
So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.
Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He is lying in this case; he's lied several times. I believe he lied about IBM.
If Novell's letters to SCO are an indication, SCO did not have the license to deny IBM privelege of doing this.
This sig no verb.
And I wasted all my karma whoring, funny, anti-SCO lines on the OTHER SCO story today!
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
who wants to bet SCO sues the government next for not agreeing with them that its infringment of IP...
And then we're looking in stdio.h, and then stdlib.h, and ustat.h, utmp.h, zlib.h, tux.h, hesiod.h!!!
g hh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa!!!
And then odbcinst.h, random.h, utime.h, umsdos_fs.h! And reboot.h, reiserfs_fs.h, irda.h, and errno.h!!!
All the way to the kernel source code!
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
So when are any of the 1,500 companies that received letters from SCO inviting them to purchase Linux licenses going to step up and complain to the US Postal Inspectors? To me, SCO committed fraud, misrepresentation, and extortion based upon their communications. Postal fraud is enough to send their entire board of directors to the slammer.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Whenever I read an SCO story, you never hear about the 2.6 kernel. Is this kernel so different that it lacks alleged "IP infringement?" I've heard of specific 2.4 kernels having problems, but none of the recent stuff. Is this an indication that maybe it is safest to go with 2.6 to get SCO off our back?
When you're too lazy to do your homework, what do you do? You cheat. And that's exactly what SCO's trying to do. Rather than do their homework and realize they have no case, they're trying to make others do it for them, and in a sense cheating. Case in point is this article which seems to pretty much clearly show that SCO is full of their own crap. There's a saying that if you tell a lie long enough, you'll start to believe it. And that's exactly what SCO is doing. They're trying to push the lies so that people will believe them. In reality, its organizations like IBM, Novell, AT&T, and groklaw that are doing all of SCO's homework for them. Heck, SCO even tried to compel IBM to show source code for AIX and Dynix which would effectively cause IBM to make SCO's case for them. This is turning into nothing more than sensationalism for SCO. Any bets on how much SCO stock is sold off tomorrow?
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
SCO spend too much time shooting with all the wrong ammo.
In a couple years this be like the browser war. There will be a stack of papers through the roof and no one really cares anymore. SCO will be down the drain, and IBM/linux even M$ will all look like good guys.
This computerworld story seems to have it sorted out:
1) AT&T licenses SysV to IBM and Sequent
2) IBM writes a bunch of cool enterprise level stuff for their flavor of SysV, and acquires Sequent
3) AT&T writes a letter to their newsletter ($echo) saying their license doesn't cover the derivative stuff, just the basic system
3) IBM eventually kicks their stuff into Linux
6) SCO buys up all the old licenses
7) SCO says the work is derivative after all, and they ownzors it
At some point the chewbacca defense starts to look a lot more rational.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
Once again.. If we do change these "offending" code blocks, we would be admitting to our "guilt".
The kernel hackers should not even think about changi anything until these lawsuits are resolved..
Why give your enemy more ammunition? He'll just come back and attack you again...
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
People deliberately lie for two reasons: To get what they want, and avoid conflict. I think he falls into the first category. He sure as hell doesn't belong in the second.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
So, they are complaining, in part, that IBM tricked them: "They made secret plans, and didn't tell us!"
"Send an Instant Karma to me" - Yes
Well, I was having a look through this 'list' and most of them are meaningless lines that just happen to coincide. Check out this blatant infringement from net/bridge/br_stp.c:43
3
p = br->port_list;
You damned linux hippies, stealing that highly critical line has ruined SCO's business!
http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/bridge/br_stp.c#L4
No need for the party I guess.
Cheers Koz
Bull. Not even SCO is claiming it's their code (IANAL, but I'm fairly sure about that). They're claiming that it's IBM's code, but the terms of IBM's UNIX license agreement didn't allow them to release it under GPL.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Well, it's apparent now that SCO is not claiming that there has been any "direct copying" of code from System V into Linux. Instead, they're arguing that IBM and Sequent's licenses to use System V source code prohibited them from making publicly available any portion of the source code of their "derivative work," that is to say, code that they developed based on System V.
The problem with SCO's reasoning is that the RCU code is completely separate from System V. It doesn't contain any System V code at all. As such, it isn't a derivative work. Despite this, SCO is claiming that any code at all that IBM or Sequent developed for their respective System V derivatives (AIX and Dynix/ptx) is either owned by SCO or is to be treated under the same terms as the System V source code itself.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse! However, given the side letter AT&T issued to IBM in 1985 telling IBM that IBM's own non-derivative source code belonged to, well, IBM, I doubt SCO's claims will bear up in court.
How is it (or am I dumb and reading things wrong) that a single line of code winds up being infringing. Am I infringing if I write 'for (x=1; x 10; x++) {}? It's like sawing I'm infringing if I write... 'The other day I was talking to my 1 year old about my friend Dick. This is what I said. See Dick.' Am I crazy, or simply misguided?
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
(BIG)Assuming SCO does own some codes in Linux, and from I can read recently, Linux users seem to claim they can quickly identify those infringing codes, issue a patch and get those codes out of Linux.
This is all fine, but I want to know if SCO can still sue for past damages? E.g. the time span that those unlicensed codes were being abused?
P.S. This is just a question based on the worst case scenario.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
For much of the document, SCO appeared to do little more than highlight IBM's contributions to Linux. They seemed to argue that IBM transferred ideas or programming concepts into Linux rather then cite any specific meaty line by line code examples. One key point that even SCO makes in this document is that these are features that have never been part of Unix. SCO lists a lot of Linux code however they don't seem to be able to list specifically what parts of their code were lifted. A good analogy would be 2 authors writing different books on the same subject. It seemed as if SCO was claiming ownership of the ideas as if they wished they owned the patents to them. When asked what portions of Linux they own, SCO refused stating the request was "overly broad and unduly burdensome". SCO also danced around the issue that they themselves contributed to Linux and distributed the code in question under the GPL by claiming ignorance. Once I heard a joke about someone who claimed ownership of the Brooklyn bridge and tried to sell it. How is SCO claiming ownership of Linux and trying to sell it any different from that situation?
Now it's not clear if they're claiming it's the implementation that's infringing (it's not exactly a hard function to code), or the interface.
If it's the latter, they're clearly in the wrong since that interface dates back to 4.2 BSD. Much of their evidence seems rather circuitous, relying on things like individual contributors having worked on Dynix in the past. Also, for relatively simple stuff, there's only one optimal algorithm, so unless they can demonstrate things like identical variable names (above a certain length), they don't have a case (in an ideal world..).
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
On another source code front, I found the Windows Source Code here although I don't think the guy hosting the site is gonna like getting his server hosed by slashdotters....
(yea, a repeat from the OTHER SCO story...)
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Actually none of this code is SCO's... This is all IBM code. The question is whether or not The code came from AIX or Dynix (both owned by IBM), but whether (a) did it originally come from AIX or Dynix (quite possibly not) and if it did (b) did IBM have th right to release in their licensce with SCO/Novell. Perhaps you should follow the story closer next time...
"These have been improperly copied into Linux 2.6.0 at lines 127 (Tab 20) and 201-240 (Tab 21)"
First time I've seen mention of problems in 2.6?
...that this has already gone farther than anyone at SCO anticipated (I'll bet a SCO license that they thought IBM would either settle or buy them out - which was a stupid assumption frankly), and now they are in a position they can neither retreat from (without instantly self-destrcuting in the process, something Boies now has too much of a stake in to allow) or advance with any real hope of winning.
It could almost be seen as a courageous effort if it wasn't so fucktastically stupid.
I'll bet a SCO sitewide license that Darl is starting to regret having ever shown up for this little legal soiree.
There once was a man from Utah
He wanted to wreck our future
He ran out of luck
And then went bankrupt
So they then took away his 'puter
There once was a man named Darl
He had a real evil snarl
He sent us a notice
But his claims our bogus
And now we wait for his fall
There once was a man from SCO
He had nowhere to go
He went real beserk
Now nothing will work
And soon he will say UH OH!
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
They have claimed, under penalty of perjury, in the IBM trial that they do not have a copy of the USL settlement.
Here they make specific claims in reference to the same settlement.
Which is the truth, and which is evidence of perjury?
Not to mention that the JFS code was originally written for OS/2 before it was ported to AIX.
No sig, sorry.
If you misrepresent a bill, that's fraud. I got something that very much looked like a bill from a regristrar that I don't use. Upon further instection, it turned out it wasn't, it was a form to transfer to them. None the less, the FTC was interested when I sent in a complain and I sent the orignal to them.
Some research turned up that it is ilelgal to send someone a bill for something they don't owe. So, if this license thing declared that a company owed them money for Linux, that would probably qualify.
I didn't know about Groklaw before the whole SCO story, so I can't tell if they've been popular around other circles before, but it seems to me that the SCO case was to Groklaw what the first gulf war was to CNN.
Well, I can make an observation, can I? Don't mod me down!
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
SCO Submits
Stolen IP to the Court
Court Laughs Hard; Craps Pants.
No they can change them without an issue.
SCO can claim damages, but without giving the chance to mitigate those damages, the chances of their succeeding is weakened.
The record is still there, whether or not the files are changed.
SCO's case does not hinge on proving that AIX/Dynix code appears in Linux.
SCO's case hinges on proving that IBM does not own the code it contributed. Which, according to the terms of the UNIX license from AT&T, IBM does have full ownership rights to derivative works.
SCO is deliberately misinterpreting a clause in the original agreement and spinning it as hard as possible.
Previous owners of UNIX rights have clarified the terms to be more in the UNIX licensee's favor in subsequent communications as well. It would be madness for a judge to overlook all of this if they did decide the clause was vague and needed to speculate on the spirit of the agreement.
The million dollar question here is what the hell is David Boies doing backing these con artists? Not having an answer to that question is the only thing stopping me from shorting SCO's stock.
Chewbacca Defense
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx If they can't determine specifically which operating system the alleged infringement came from, then what are the grounds for their law suit in the first place? It's more like a fishing expedition. This is analagous to Joe open source coder filing a lawsuit against Microsoft because "we beleive Windows may contain GPL licensed code."
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"I started my blog just before the SCO case was filed. Originally, my purpose was just trying to learn how to blog, because an attorney and I were discussing the possibility of me doing some telecommuting work for him, including work on his blog
/. [Slashdot] comments about legal news and most of the comments would be way off, and I realized that there is a hunger for someone to explain what it all means, what the process is, how things play out, to people who aren't in the legal field.
[...]
My thought then was to try to explain legal news stories as they came along. I was forever reading
[...]
I didn't think too many people would ever read it, except I thought maybe IBM might find my research and it'd help them. Or someone out there would read it and realize he or she had meaningful evidence and would contact IBM or FSF. I know material I have put up can help them, if they didn't already know about it. "
So in short, yes.
Cue The Sun...
It is not possible to lie without knowing it. A lie is a knowingly untruthful statement made with the intent of deceiving.
So ... if Darl is an unconcious liar, perhaps it is because somebody just hit him on the head with a clue-stick? Or perhaps he just got side-swiped by SCOX's falling share price?
So SCO when backed into a corner and told to "put up or shut up" has a pretty weak case.
That is no surprise to anyone in the IT community.
*BUT*
It is no surprise to SCO__either__. That is why they kept their mouths shut for so long about their evidence ( lack of )
SCO knew this going into the scheme.
The interesting surprise to come is to see how the players from SCO are going to get out of being punished.
They had to see this coming.
In the bush era of no penalties for Worldcom or Enron execs Daryl may be laughing at all of us a few months from now.
Linux may be fully vindicated by then, but maybe so will he/his buddies be......and with the money they made off of this nonsense.
Steve
There once was a young slashdot reader
Who utterly failed to grasp meter,
And didn't have time
To understand rhyme --
So even the FPs were 1337er!
sulli
RTFJ.
There you go! This SCO thing is really just a plot by the Linux kernel development group to force everybody to upgrade to 2.6! (Hey, it makes as much sense as the claims made on slashdot that Microsoft intentionally released NT4.0 and Win2K to justify an early end of life for those products!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
But you can steal copies of music and movies. Yet perhaps that's your point - that this is incorrect use of 'steal': Unless you're saying going to Best Buy and taking a bunch of music and movies without paying for them isn't stealing.
I don't agree. If you "steal" something, you are depriving someone else of said item. If I make an illegal copy of my pal's music CD, I am not depriving him of his ability to listen to the CD, ergo, it isn't theft.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
First, SCO needs to show infringing lines of
code. The court directed SCO to provide to IBM what
IBM requested in discovery and one item, the main
item, were lines of code from original Unix that are
in Linux by means of IBM. SCO only responded with
code not in original UNIX, but programs wholely
written by (at the time) Sequent and IBM. SCO's
contention is that since they touched UNIX they are
UNIX is a *##&*$&)$#@
+++ATH
OK
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Note to Daryl: Sue the OS/2 users too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
SCO is "so" full of it that I'm just amazed. Anyone remember Xenix? Well, a long time ago SCO support was in a nutshell $100.00 a question. I called them in regards to the "new" USRobotics HST modem support, and they couldn't figure it out. Guess what? I figured it out myself and like a idiot, sent the fix to SCO. Am I entitled to compensation? Nahhh..., was I credited... nope. This company is lame!
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Taking out the contractual agreements, etc. the lineage of the UNIX code goes something like this:
AT&T made UNIX and sold it to Novell.
Novell owned UNIX and sold it to SCO.
SCO thought it owned UNIX and licensed it to everyone.
But if we weren't talking about UNIX source code. What if we were talking about a cheap hooker? What if it went something like this:
Brian Roberts (CEO AT&T) nailed Martha.
Brian sold Martha to Jack Messman (CEO Novell).
Jack nailed Martha and sold her to Darl McBride.
Darl nailed Martha, then pimped her out to everyone, then sued them all when Martha got syphilis and HIV.
Life is always a matter of perspective. If we were talking about a whore instead of UNIX code, do you really thing we'd all care?
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
If the GPL author can demand that an entire codebase be opened upon the inclusion of even a small amount of GPL'd code, then SCO is well within their rights to demand the same in their licenses and expect the same adherence from the licensee.
Nonsense. The GPL is an affirmative grant of expanded copyright privileges. If I create some code and incorporate some GPL'ed stuff into it, it is not the case that my code is suddenly tainted and becomes GPL'ed. It's just that if I distribute the combined work under terms incompatible with the GPL, I am illegally distributing that (GPL'ed) portion of the combined work whose copyright does not belong to me. GPL'ing my own software is NOT mandatory.. neither the FSF nor Linus Torvalds, no anyone else has the right to force me to GPL my code. But they can stop me from distributing _their_ code.. and if my code is totally useless without that GPL'ed software, well, too bad.
The AT&T contract that SCO is basing their entire case on (although they've been screaming bloody murder to distract people from this fact in the press) states that derived works shall be treated in similar fashion to AT&T's unmodified works for the purposes of the IBM/Sequent/SGI contracts. That is, you can't modify AT&T's code and then give it away.
That says nothing about RCU or JFS or XFS, which are original code created by IBM and SGI, respectively. That code is not derivative of AT&T's code merely because it was commingled into AIX and IRIX. AT&T/Novell/SCO/Caldera/SCOX did not have anything to do with the creation of RCU, JFS, or XFS. SCO is making a very persuasive case that RCU, JFS, and XFS were contributed to Linux by IBM and SGI, here. And that's great. But they haven't shown in the slightest degree that, against all common sense or case law, IBM and SGI's original works become 'derivative' of AT&T's code because they were at one point commingled into a product that contained AT&T code.
The GPL doesn't work that way. The AT&T license didn't work that way, judging from AT&T's own comments in the 1985 $echo newsletter cited at GROKLAW. And you know what? Copyright doesn't work that way, either.
IANALTG.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
http://www.temporal-acuity.net/sco/SCO.jpg
Here's a thought for counter-suit.
IBM should put together some diff scripts and take a selection of random works from the last 1000 years or two.
I'm sure with even with minimal translation they could come up with some extremely popular pieces of literature that have the same %-age of similar sentances as SCO has shown exist in their code comparisons.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there was a great deal of literature that shows a much higher percentage of alikeness(?). Maybe it would also help show a non-technical courtroom the actual (non)-importance and lack of proof that finding a few thousand matching lines (minus header files) out of millions truly is, especially when the subjects are extremely similar (ie, a similar interface to a specific subset of hardware) written in the same language(s), by people trained by a similar school of thought and experience (covers learning by example).
Darnit, I used the letter 'i' as a counter in a loop, descriptive variable names, and half a million other things I learned from C better sue me for copying your code....even if I haven't written C in years...
Whee signature.
I know it was a joke but let me tell you something.
The further up you go in an organization more you lie every day. If you are aprogrammer you might only have to lie once or twice a week.
If you are promoted then you find yourself lying more often because you have to lie both to your bosses and your underlings.
As you go up you may find yourself lying a dozen times a day just to get through.
I imagine a CEO pretty much lies constantly. I bet they don't even know the difference between a truth and a lie anymore.
War is necrophilia.
I have a fair idea that if I look at some of the user documentation I wrote 20+ years ago I could find phrases if not sentences that Darl has stolen to use in his documentation.
The phrases..
- press any key
- turn to page....
etc. etc. spring to mind.
How DO I file a lawsuit....
DON'T LOOK!
This publicly available Caldera documentation could contain items including but not limited to proprietary, unpublished SCO code, copyrights, trade secrets, and/or patents!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Let's see, he's:
Prosecuted Microsoft (Antitrust)
Defended Napster
Represented Gore in 2000
Now his name is hung on the SCO case, and I have to wonder - is he famous for losing? The only thing missing is prosecuting O.J.
So, why did it take so long for SCO to produce this?
I can't help but wondering that they wanted to wait until 2.6 was out, thereby ensuring that one more generation of the kernel would be guaranteed to be "tainted". The article was full of references to 2.6.0.
2.6.0 is now in freeze mode and it will be really hard to remove all the lines that SCO alleges are infringement. Had they released this while 2.6 still was 2.5, the community could (at least in theory) have done a halt in development and spend some time on removing these lines.
Even if these lines of code really aren't infringement SCO can argue that they are. If they were removed, they can't even argue that.
SCOs ability to extort large amounts of money is greatly decreased if all people had to do was to upgrade the kernel to 2.6.0 to be out of the woods.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
From South Park, Episode 214 "Chef Aid"
Judge Moses: Mr. Johnny Cochrane, your closing argument.
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe his client wrote Stinky Britches ten years ago, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
[Walks up to a chart stand]
Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and Gentlemen, (Pulls down picture of Chewbacca) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wooky from the planet Kishic, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense.
Gerald (Whispering): Dammit.
Chef (Whispering): What?
Gerald (Whispering): He's using the Chewbacca defense.
Johnny Cochrane: Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.
[Jury stares in silence]
Johnny Cochrane: Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.
[Gerald sinks back and covers his eyes]
Johnny Cochrane: It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.
[Silence]
Judge Moses: OK then.
Unixware has never achieved a substantial market share
Another quote, again no mention of _copyrights_
X/Open introduces the UNIX 95 branding programme. Novell sells UnixWare business to SCO
nwfusion makes this interesting distinction:
1992 - Purchases rights to AT&T UNIX
1995 - Sells Unixware to Santa Cruz Operation
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Actually people lie for a third reason, to GENERATE conflict. Michael Robertson (more info in the link in my sig) lies to generate publicity surrounding his company. Darl lies because it will artificially inflate his stock price, by getting him noticed. Robertson lies because it gets him sympathy if he says his company is being beat up by Microsoft. Darl didn't DARE sue Linus or Linux (in any concrete form), he went after IBM, which has deep pockets.
Anyway, just wanted to clarify that some people lie to GENERATE conflict.
Lindows Steals Copyrighted Art and Promotes Porn
I wanted to see what they were whining about, so I downloaded 2.4.1. None of their line numbers make any sense. They're claiming we copied comments about Linux from them? And blank lines? Am I missing something here??
So out of curiousity I randomly looked at some of the lines mentioned and according to SCO .. Lines copied:
init/main.c (Tab 18) 30-33
30
31 #include <asm/io.h>
32 #include <asm/bugs.h>
33
But ofcourse..
[alk]
SCO lost Autozone to IBM's Linux efforts. They're a huge auto parts distribution chain with about 6,000 stores the last time I looked - I used to work for a much smaller competitor of theirs that went bankrupt in the mid nineties.
m
Target has *within the last month* told SCO to go pound sand and done a deal with IBM for Linux conversion. I'm not sure how many locations they have - does anyone have that info handy? Please post if you do.
Sherwin Williams I know less about than either of the other two but IBM has helped SCO to the door there, too.
I hope Darl & company get prosecuted but I feel bad for the SCO troops - this is exactly the same behavior (pump & dump) I saw with the auto parts supplier where I worked in the mid nineties. I wrote a perl script that calculated severance for 4,000 employees and the scumbag behind the whole scheme went right into something much nicer than unemployment and vocational training:
http://www.corporateexpress.com/Mark_Hoffman.ht
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
AT&T said in 1985 that additions to UNIX were not considered derivative works, only modifications to the actual code.
IBM's license reiterates that IBM owns their contributions, and is perpetual and irrevocable.
Novell backs up IBM's claims, and offers proof that SCO does not own UNIX.
There was no written transfer of copyrights from Novell to SCO. SCO (old SCO, not Caldera/SCO) bought the UNIX business, not the UNIX copyrights.
SCO failed under a court order to identify any code of "theirs" in Linux that IBM didn't write.
They did identify hundreds of lines in Linux that IBM wrote, and own, far short of the millions of lines of UNIX code they claim were illegally copied in violation of SCO's copyrights.
SCO does not even have a copy of the "derivative" AIX source code they claim to own.
SCO has violated thousands of copyrights and broken many laws.
SCO still offered the code in question under the GPL far into the discpute, and it's even digitally signed with their key.
Etc. Groklaw explains it all.
p = (*br).port_list; // :P
Actually people deliberatly lie for one reason: to get what they want. If I'm lying to avoid conflict or generate conflict, I'm still lying to get what I want.
Well, my plan was to rename p to fuck_sco. But yours is a one line change and therefore takes precendence
Cheers Koz
Well, well, well, SCO finally lays its cards on the table and what do you know? All jokers, at least all the claims about IBM's contributions to Linux. However, they do make various allegations having to do with IBM's supposed unathorized use of library code developed by SCO:
:-)
Upon information and belief, AutoZone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside AutoZone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of AutoZone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
Hmm, evidence seems a little thin there, actually "suspicion" would be a better word that evidence. Personally, I think SCO is just blowing hot air once again, and that IBM will simply show that and code conversions done in their contract work were done without the help of shared libraries owned by SCO, or if the customer did continue using them, that they had every right to. This should be rather cut and dried has nothing to do with SCO's ownership claims in Linux. It's just another amusing sideshow brought to us courtesy of the clowns at SCO.
The central point of this filing of course is SCO's rejection as "overly broad and unduly burdensome" IBM's question about what specific source code in Linux they think they own rights too. If their goal is to obtain a mistrial by causing the judge to burst an artery laughing, they just might do it
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It's actually kind of ironic, considering that SCO has been claiming all this time that the GPL is bad because it's "viral." It sounds to me that the System V licensing agreement, as construed by SCO, is far worse!
An excellent point, and worth re-reading.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
<ianal>
Whether such code falls under the original UNIX license or not is irrelevant. SCO's claim is that Sequent/IBM agreed under contract terms that any "derivative work" becomes SCO property. It's not unlike GPL, which requires derivative works of GPL code to also be under GPL. But the difference here is that it wasn't written into the UNIX license, per se, but was part of the agreed contract.
That said, we have to look at whether SCO's argument, and the contract terms, are flawed and/or have a loop hole. Suppose the development of the technology at issue here was being done independently. That makes it the property of those who are doing that development, e.g. Sequent and/or IBM. If this technology is subsequently contributed into the UNIX operating systems (Dynix/ptx and AIX), it isn't really a derived work, but rather is a combination or merger. I don't know about Sequent, but IBM most certainly has a lot of other irons in the development fire, including a major operating system (MVS or z/OS) for their mainframe systems, as well as OS/2 from the early PC days, in which this very technology would also be of vital importance. So who's to know (IBM might) whether this technology was developed independently (IBM has lots of R&D people doing this very kind of thing) and just added on to AIX?
Consider it this way. What if I had developed some technology that IBM found would be very good for their operating systems. They come to me to get this technology and I license them non-exclusive rights to use it. Thus, I retain original ownership, but IBM can use it in their products (and pay me royalty). Now suppose they add this technology to AIX. Does that make it a derived work of UNIX and thus belonging to SCO? That's not possible because I retain the original ownership.
Now there are two issues. Did IBM (or Sequent) genuinely develop these things in some independent way, and if so, does the fact that the same company that owns that technology and also signed the contract agreement for UNIX mean that they have to place all the ownership of that technology under UNIX? If IBM put that technology in their mainframe OS, too, then it would look pretty clear that it is an independent development. I'm not so sure about Sequent.
My argument would be that if IBM can put a licensed technology into AIX without it becoming a derived work of UNIX in the case where they license it from someone else, then they can also put technology into AIX without it becoming a derived work of UNIX in the case where the development of it was done independently. And once it is not a derived work of UNIX, IBM is free (as the original owner) to do with it as they please, including making a GPL distribution branch of it for Linux (and this would not in any way mean that the copy of it in AIX is GPL).
I suspect that the case is going to either hinge on something like the above argument, or the fact that the contractual license agreement itself having originally come from AT&T, any rights to so-called "derived works" were dismissed by AT&T long ago.
</ianal>
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I found this as one of the articles on groklaw, but I don't know how to link directly to the article, so I cut and paste it in its entirety:
One More Time -- Contract Dispute, not Copyrights.
Authored by: LionKuntz on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
One more time...
This is presently a CONTRACT DISPUTE, not a copyright dispute. Copyrights are
argued in FEDERAL COURT; this is a Utah State court.
A judge, with no especial technical expertice, is asked to evaluate a flood of
data presented by SCOG, as to completeness of disclosure. This is NOT THE TRIAL
-- this is PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY (different rules and standards of strictness).
In public statements out-of-court, and statements in court pleadings, SCOG
claims that their CONTRACT was breached.
Was it, or wasn't it -- this is FACT, to be determined in TRIAL, not something
to be determined PRE-TRIAL.
The "information" from NOVELL, from AT&T, from SCOG's release of
documents, may be decided out-of-court by armchair jurists, but the law requires
it to be settled inside a courtroom by the rules of evidence in a trial.
A motion to dismiss might be entered and succeed only IF there is some
extra-ordinary evidence OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO DATE ON GROKLAW.NET.
AS OF TODAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004, the main case SCOG v IBM has no copyright
infringement element. All out-of-court discussions by SCOG and/or armchair
jurists about copyrights is peripheral to the matter in contest in court.
SCOG's arguments are their "copyrighted" code was used as a platform
for development of extended functionality to AIX/DYNIX, and BY CONTRACT SCOG has
rights to suppression of distribution to extensions to "their"
contract.
UNLESS IBM's legal team (and volunteers in the open community) can turn up clear
evidence that SCOG's code was publically released without copyrights long ago,
THEN the case must proceed onwards to trial next year.
ONLY PROOF of the invalidity of SCOG's copyright claims can shorten the process
-- nothing else other than SCOG's voluntary withdrawal of the lawsuit can
shorten the process. QUESTIONS "OF FACT" MUST BE DECIDED BY TRIER OF
FACT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. The "Trier of Fact" is the trial with
evidence and witnesses of both sides.
ALL hope for shorter process is doomed to failure, because deep-pockets
Microsoft has endless dollars to throw at this. They have given $8.3 already,
which is equal to what has been spent so far, and nobody knows for certain who
is behind the $50m of Canadian money from another country. One must assume there
is no shortage of funds for SCOG to keep the controversy alive.
The short path to resolution is to invalidate SCOG's claim to valid copyrights
by turning up eyewitnesses who go on record that UNIX was distributed without
proper copyrights affixed, and without a rigorous confidentiality compliance
program between 1968 and 1972.
IF SCOG has claims on a "Public Domain Collection Copyright", rather
than claims on "Original Creative Work Copyright", THEN there can be
no DERIVATIVE RIGHTS possible, AND THEN the CONTRACT DISPUTE based on
DERIVATIVES is terminated -- SCOG has no standing to sue. Case Dismissed.
IBM is evidently pursuing this avenue by demanding all source codes going all
the way back in their discovery actions against SCOG. Hundreds of people can
spend hundreds of hours transcribing filing after filing. If you want your
energy to be fruitful and productive you will ignore all the paper blizzard and
concentrate on finding those eyewitnesses.
They surely exist. Strong clues are in the UNIX histories online.
Probably, the seal on the USL v UC Berkeley case revolve around "trade
secrets" involving how much of UNIX escaped into Public Domain in the early
period.
Besides Berkeley, many universities and many hundreds (if not many thousands) of
students were exposed to UNCOPYRIG
SCO Group announced today that the Open source community had code to create progams of mass infringement.
"We will find this code of Mass Infringement," A SCO spokesperson said. "They've got to be hiding the code somewhere. It's just a matter of time before we find it."
Last year SCO Group waged war against the Open Source Community claiming that it had Code of Mass Infringement.
Actually people deliberatly lie for one reason: to get what they want. If I'm lying to avoid conflict or generate conflict, I'm still lying to get what I want.
What about people who tell the truth? Why do they do that?
FreeBSD
OpenBSD
NetBSD
Darwin
FreeDos
Windows 2000
Windows NT
Ladies and gentlemen...
Without further ado...
Let me start by saying...
Right in the middle of all the...
Billions and billions of...
Great works of literature...
You will find enclosed...
A lot in common...
On the other hand...
If this pack of...
Litigious bastards...
Manage to pull a miracle...
They might turn the world upside down...
And hit the jackpot...
While hell freezes over...
Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
I personaly do my best to tell to be honest - yet tactful - always because guilt is heavy. When I lie, I always feel like the other person knows I lied, they just can't prove it so they don't say anything. The effect is the same though. That person will never trust you. If you are untrusted, you are friend to none. If have noone - you are sad indeed.
ymmv
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this [points to presentation board] is a Penguin. It lives in very cold places and swims in near freezing waters. That does not make sense. Why would any animal live in such cold places, when clearly, a nice tropical beach would be a much nicer place to live?! It does not make sense! What does this have to do with copyright infringement? NOTHING! It does not make sense! A penguin lives in cold places, and it does NOT make sense. None of this makes any sense. If a penguin does not need mits, you must ACQUIT!
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They couldn't think up a lie quick enough.
Free as in mason.
Hear me out... There are some questions that need to be decided by a court (not withstanding the particulars of SCO v IBM). 1) What constitutes a derivative work with regards to software? and 2) Exactly how enforcable is the GPL? I think the first question is difficult to discuss, but the second should be pretty quick and easy.
It'll be good IMHO to get a court to say that the GPL is just fine and perfectly enforcible, and to put down a real, legal test for derivative software.
Any disagreement?
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
So they don't have to remember every lie they ever told - which they have to do in order to avoid being sprung, and TSG hasn't been doing so well at this recently.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Let's look at this a little closer, with help from dictionary.com:Illegally copying a work does not involve capturing it physically (since the physical object need never leave possession of the rightful owner), confiscating it (again, because it is not removed from the owner), or killing, snaring or trapping (because it's not a friggin' squirrel). So to steal, you have to take, and to take, you have to physically remove something from the owner.
Let's start with the fact that "stolen" IP is almost never in the possession of the "owner" when it it "stolen." Generally, someone copies it not directly from the owner, but from a legal license holder. Therefore, even if it does involve physically removing the item (and, under right of first sale, if you *do* physically remove the item from the previous owner, you are specifically *not* infringing on copyright), you did not remove it from the "owner" as defined by copyright law.
It is possible to steal a CD from your roommate, but that is not copyright infringement. It is possible to infringe on copyright by copying a CD your roommate owns, but that is not stealing. It is possible to steal the CD from your roommate and copy it and pass it out to all your friends, in which case you've both stolen and infringed, but you haven't even done them to the same person. This is why the difference is important: stealing involves possession of a physical object. Copyright infringement does not. Therefore, they have to be defined differently, and so the law makes a distinction.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
If you obtain something without paying for it, it doesn't matter that the medium happens to allow a direct copy of it.
Your mistake is that you think "steal" means "obtain something without paying for it." It doesn't. It means removing something from someone else's possession (as more completely described, with dictionary citations, in another post of mine above). If all that was necessary to steal something was to obtain it without paying for it, we'd have a heck of a time with gift-giving, not to mention the Free Software movement.
Laws about stealing are about removal of property without consent. Laws about copyright infringement are about possession, distribution, or use of material without consent. They are not the same. Stop confusing them.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
That is entirely the wrong question. IBM wrote the code. IBM owns the code. IBM contributed the code. SCO is *claiming* that doing so violates some contract IBM has with them. The burden of proof lies on them. The question is NOT what "licence" IBM has from SCO to release their own stuff under the GPL. (you don't need a "license" to do what you please with stuff you wrote yourself.) The question is, what evidence does SCO have that IBM is, infact, violating some agreement with them by doing as it does.
While we're arguing about this, I'd like to remind people that they might want to check if their mutual funds are any of the ones listed below - because you'll be taking a bath soon enough: My intreptation of the financial stats.
Top mutual funds with [bad] holdings of SCOX:
Bjurman, Barry Micro-Cap Growth Fund
ING Inv Tr-Ing/Capital Guardian Small Cap Port
Royce Technology Value Fund
Oberweis Micro-Cap Portfolio
Top SCO institutional stock holders:
Capital Guardian Trust Company
Royce & Associates, Inc.
Integral Capital Management Vi, LLC
Bjurman, Barry & Associates
Empire Capital Partners LP
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The)
In the two months, it appears two more large scale insider stock dumps have been perpetrated (in addition to the previous months HUGE insider stock dumps):
VP GASPARRO, LARRY 5,259 shares
Director RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. 11,841 shares (exercised option @$1.12/share - nice dump) $210,000 pocket change!
Most obnoxious co-conspirator to the stock scam:
Deutsche Securities - issuing an analyst recommendation "buy" on SCOX - they are probably also helping to launder money that's feeding the SCO legal campaign I bet.
When you're too lazy to do your homework, what do you do? You cheat.
... I can say that this assertion is simply wrong. People cheat when they are desparate; when they don't understand what is going on, when they fear failing. The way you notice cheating is not when people do something right, but rather when they do something wrong. People who are clever enough to cheat well will probably observe that it is less trouble to apply their cleverness to simply doing the work, than to cheat effectively; cheating effectively requires considerable effort.
/. and McBride is that very few /. readers would have the spine to stand up and assert something as outlandish as SCO asserts. To /. folk, the SCO business is all very abstract, there's a billion dollars and a corporation at stake ... but it's not our money or our corporation. It's more like the WWF, where there is an official Bad Guy who will, at the end of the evening, get stomped by the Good Guy, for the pleasure of the viewing audience.
As a Genuine University Professor, who has seen a lot of cheating
Petty cheating persists because it is expensive to prosecute. Think about it. In the university setting, for example, faculty are rewarded for bringing dollars and fame --- not for upholding academic standards among their students. If I catch someone cheating on an exam, it is my fervent hope that they will readily admit it, because if they don't, I have to weigh the cost of spending perhaps 40 man-hours (my own time, and others) to deal with an isolated case of petty cheating --- by someone who is almost certainly headed for a dismal grade anyway. People who cheat in class do not get good grades! Seriously! There are steps one can take to make cheating very difficult. For example, if my classes are small enough (under 24 students or so), I try to have an oral final exam. Anyone who can cheat during a one-on-one oral exam, well, they have a very special gift indeed. But I need at least a half hour for each exam, and there is no putting that work off on TA-slaves.
I have run into "malicious" cheaters, but such behavior is very rare --- at least among university students (engineers). Now, it may very well be that CEOs of modern corporations are cut from a different cloth --- Larry Ellison, for example, seems to be the very avatar of acquisitiveness --- but most people are pretty good. And flawed --- sort of like Zoyd Wheeler, in Pynchon's "Vineland."
It's fun to beat up on people who find themselves, through a moment of weakness, in a terrible fix. We have often not bothered to understand their circumstances, nor acknowledge our own role in their predicament. Ronald Reagan, for example, liked to blow hard about the Welfare Queen, a terrible creature which exists in about the same measure as Grendel.
For another example, consider the American Taliban, John Walker. He's a pretty fat target for abuse; but is it so surprising to the nerds of slashdot that someone might do the things that Walker did? And then when someone like Steve Earle writes a sympathetic song about Walker, the derision is turned up to 11. (try this google; most of the entries are either parodies or negative criticism, poisonous "patriotism" or other nonsense.)
If the real case of Walker makes you uneasy, how about the great supernerd John Hackworth in Neal Stephenson's magnificent "The Diamond Age." Hackworth wanted nothing more than to raise his daughter well; he "cheated," got caught in one lie, tried to cover it up, and wound up spectacularly entangled in a series of punishments that lasted over a decade.
So, anyway. It's fun to beat up on SCO, and McBride. One of the differences between most people who read
So, pay attention to the interesting analysis performed by Groklaw-folk, but mod yourself down if you're merely going to hurl abuse at Darl and SCO. This is a tragedy unfolding; a very human tragedy.
Too right. I was quietly chuckling at an ad the other day. A soothing voice explaining how 'our' commitment to something or other was feeding the starving millions and curing cancer and ultimately guaranteed peace for all mankind or something and then suddenly there's the Microsoft logo and I'm like 'WTF?', you guys aren't bringing me any peace at all, you just make me really angry and .... oops sorry.
Now wash your hands.
Not to mention that the JFS code was originally written for OS/2 before it was ported to AIX.
Yes, and since AIX is a derivate of JFS code, and the JFS code is a derivate of OS/2, wouldn't it then be accurate to say that in some small way, AIX is a derivate of OS/2? And is then OS/2 also bound by the Unix licence now? And any code that it again might have been derived from?
That's how hilariously viral SCOs interpretation is. If the original work became restricted through inclusion in a derivative work, I imagine pretty much all of IBMs codebase would be "tainted". If the licence was what SCO claims it is, anything added to Unix would practically be a work-for-hire for SCO.
Not to mention a certain temporal paradox here. What if IBM had licenced JFS under the GPL before putting it into AIX? Could SCO claim it was a derivative work then? I doubt that. So, assuming you want to avoid any "reverse contamination" like SCO is trying to pull, you should first licence the original work (JFS) to yourself (or a straw firm) under a BSD licence, allowing it to be relicenced. That way the BSD licence would be older and so could impossibly be a derivate of AIX. And so you could GPL it from the BSD licence.
Of course, the above makes no sense. You don't need to BSD licence it to yourself, copyright already gives you all those rights granted by it. But it shows how stupid SCO's claim is.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"The Buy Now" Page:
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxl icense. html
leads to the
How to purchase and activate a SCO IP License" page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howtobu y.html
Step 1:
Review the SCO IP End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) to understand the terms and conditions and rights granted with the SCO IP License. Please click here to review the EULA.
Step 2:
Make your selection of the pertinent SCO IP license for your Server or Desktop system, and purchase by credit card through our online store. Your license will be delivered electronically to the e-mail address specified in your order form.
Step 3:
Register your SCO IP license to complete the legal activation of your license and to receive an electronic copy of the EULA.
Note: you will be required to provide the name of the Server to which the SCO IP License will be applied. Please have this information available when you register your software.
Which links to the EULA Page
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.ht ml
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LICENSE
(This Agreement is available to all entities using a SCO Operating System distribution)
IMPORTANT, READ CAREFULLY ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AND IS INCLUDED WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF LICENSE AUTHENTICITY ("COLA"). BY EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THIS LICENSE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND IT, AND YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREUNDER IN ANY MANNER.
YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT SCO MAKES NO GRANT OF RIGHTS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH RESPECT TO ANY SOFTWARE OTHER THAN THE SCO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEFINED BY THIS AGREEMENT.
This Agreement does not include any rights to access, use, modify or distribute any SCO source code in any form under any licensing arrangement.
DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" is the contract between you ("You") and The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), relating to the rights acquired by You. The Agreement comprises (i) this document, (ii) any amendments agreed by both You and SCO in writing and (iii) any additional terms and conditions included in the COLA. Such additional terms may pertain, without limitation, to the following: term, fees and payment, number of permitted CPUs, registration requirements, restriction on runtime environment and transfer of Your rights.
"Code" shall mean computer programming instructions.
"CPU " shall mean a single physical computer processor.
"Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Operating System. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
"Method" shall mean the human or machine methodology for, or approach to, design, structure, modification, upgrade, de-bugging, tuning, improvement, or adaptation of Code.
"Operating System" shall mean software operating system Code (or Code that substantially performs the functions of an operating system) that is a distribution, rebranding, modification or derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system or otherwise incorporates Code covered by SCO IP which is not commercially licensed by SCO or one of SCO's authorized licensees.
"System" shall mean a computer system, containing the licensed CPUs, controlled by a single instance of the Operating System.
"Object Code" shall mean the Code that results when Source Code is processed by a software compiler and is directly executable by a computer.
"UNIX-based Code" shall mean any Code or Method that: (i) in its literal or non-literal expression, structure, format, use, functiona
Thanks for the information. However,
i) SCO has added a complaint of copyright infringement. See Groklaw.
ii) The case is being heard by Judge Dale Kimball in *Federal* court, not Utah state court. So, the court is perfectly entitled to rule on copyrights.
iii) As for the process being long or short, who knows. However, it seems unlikely to be very long if SCO fails to bring any evidence to discovery, as has been the case so far.
So, your cut-and-paste review is inaccurate in a couple of instances, but let's see what happens.
Repeat after me:
/evil laugh! 8-)
"I have no _informed_ opinion."
"I don't care who is at fault here, lets all blame it on me and then fix it." (used liberally when things are *not* your fault will buy you lots of credits for when something finally *is* your fault.)
"I was just wasting time, malingering, you know, 'leaning on my shovel'..." (A certian amount of this is expected in any job, it's just human nature. Never try to hide it. People stop trying to catch you out if you don't hide it. Done right, you can out-malinger everybody else at the company with impunity. Of course, then it gets to easy, even boring, and you end up out working everybody else becase excessive slacking sucks.)
"Your question presumes facts not in evidence." (always phrased exactly this way, this is the only answer to the "when did you stop beating your wife?" backhand accusation.)
"I blew the time/cost esitmate."
"I am not at liberty to say."
"May I direct you to sales/the VP of development/etc."
"Sorry, I must be an idiot, I didn't mean to infer (whatever)."
"We have decided the best course is (whatever)." (even when you disagree completely, if the collective has spoken, own your place as mouth-piece.)
and finally, on occasion: "Is this the part where I list all the reasons that this is supurbly a bad idea?"
There is virtually no professional condition that requires one to tell a lie. People lie to squirm from the uncomfortable. A well placed and disarming truth is almost invariably more effective. So is keeping your trap shut (as skill The Daryl seems to lack 8-).
Moreso, a proactive truth can prevent the lie-inducing circumstance. Walk into your boss' office and say "I just lost two days because I stupidly copied the backup over the new work instead of the other way around. Damn I feel like an idiot."
There is only one lie that some meaningless jobs require you to tell, namely: "I'd be happy to assist you sir."
Besides, if you get a reputation for never lying, when you finally need to lie it is that much easier...
Seriously, the first one, "I have no informed opinion," is the most useful. This is the phrase to pull out when someone is trying to "manuver you" into making statements you know are incorrect. It has many variants but the core meaning that must be carried is that guessing now, and then being held to that guess, is not a circumstance you care to enter into. It can be followed by a "if you need me to make a total guess, then I can, but following that guess as cannon would probably be ruinous."
In point of fact, once you present yourself as a "dificult target" you will be spared virtually all of the political games at work. Then, somehow, you become "the nutral party" as if by magic, and you suddenly become privy to all manner of things.
Finally, don't _spread_ gossip... rant publically if necessary, but always be known as the guy who will say to the face anything he would say to a backside. Listen to the gosip of others when necessary, but take it with a grain of salt. The answer to "did X say Y to you?" is (unless "Y" is a promise of felonious activity) "X and I rant to one another about all sorts of things."
And so on.
As long as you are never cruel or bitter (beyond need 8-) you really never need to lie.
We *remember* being lied to because we remember catching out the lie. That alone is proof that the lying is unsustainable.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
"Actually people deliberatly lie for one reason: to get what they want."
Actually, people do all things for only one reason: to get what they want. It's kind of a non-argument. Even behavior one would consider self-destructive or sacrificial serves some kind of internal need/desire (or is made in ignorance, with the belief that it serves a need or desire).
For example, if a guy pushes someone out of the way of a bus so that he gets hit instead - a pretty selfless act - he either thought he could save the person without getting hit, or he preferred to get hit over the other person. Or, more accurately, there was some risk, and the reward of feeling good about himself, being exhalted as a hero, or any number of things outweighed the perceived risk.
So, either people deliberately lie for one sort-of-meaningless reason (to get what they want), or for one or more of an innumerable list of reasons at the level above that (increase wealth, avoid blame, make one's self look good, avoid conflict, generate conflict, ad infinitum...).
-If
Addendum: I suppose things get fuzzier when you talk about brainwashing. Someone can be made to want things that they originally didn't want through all sorts of various manipulations. It doesn't really change the above, people still always act to get what they want, but what they want can be manipulated.
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!
This document does not indicate SCO-owned source code that has been copied into Linux. This document is SCO outlining IBM-owned source code that we all knew they had donated to Linux. That IBM's RCU and XFS were existing technologies is well known.
This lawsuit is not about whether the copying took place - it did. It is about whether IBM has the right to use code they developed internally (or purchased from those who developed internally) from thier own version of UNIX into whatever they want. SCO's claim is that anything that was used with UNIX in the past is somehow a UNIX derivative.
None of this is about SCO claiming to own this code (yet, anyway) - they claim the right to prevent it's use in Linux, because it was first used with UNIX. This is the "hook" of the lawsuit that anyone who would find for SCO would have to swallow. Historic AT&T, Modern Novell and just about everyone who has looked at the facts understand that using two things together doesn't make one derived from the other, and presumably a judge will be able to understand this as well.
-
Once again.. If we do change these "offending" code blocks, we would be admitting to our "guilt".
The kernel hackers should not even think about changi anything until these lawsuits are resolved..
Why give your enemy more ammunition? He'll just come back and attack you again...
Changing or removing the alleged infringing core wouldn't be an admission of guilt at all. Especially since the linux coders have been saying for about a year now to let them know what's infringing and it'll be removed ASAP. In fact, not removing it would give SCO even more ammunition.- "You see Judge, we told you those Linux hackers don't care about anyone's IP or Copyrights. They said they'd remove the infriging code ASAP after we identified it and now they've changed their minds and won't do so."
Overlooking the fact that not removing it isn't admitting guilt either, this would do nothing to endear us to the judge, making the legal battle harder than it has to be.One final thought, I'm sure that SCO would absolutely LOVE for the kernel hackers to wait until the lawsuits are resolved to fix the alleged infringing code. Why that'd have the kernel in limbo until the lawsuits were resolved, and that could be 2010 as slow as the justice system can be added to the fact that SCO has already shown it wants to drag this out as long as possible.
Screw whether they're really infringing or not, lets get that code out of the kernel and replaced with new code that cannot have SCO (or another company/individual like SCO) raising a stink over it infringing their IP or copyright. SCO can play in the courts until their money runs out, and Linux will move on and likely become much stronger for it. Who knows, this might help the kernel hackers to think of new, innovative ways to code the same things that are actually faster/more secure/more stable/etc!
Darl went after IBM because it was the most outrageous thing to do.
Every move SCO has made has been made to be more outrageous than the one before. They're stirring the pot. They want dissension in the open source camp. They want distraction. They want to rattle people. The more preposterous the claims, the better. They want to kill open source - destroy Linux and Linus both. This is straight by the book Halloween Documents. It's so bloody obvious.
And they're doing it because somebody's told them to. They have absolutely nothing to lose, and a promise that if they keep it up just a little bit longer...
Somebody is already planning their early retirement...
Dude, telling lies to raise your stocks isn't a performative act. A major point of Austin's speech act theory is that illocutionary acts are inherently actions, as distinct from constative statements that may simply provoke a desired response. Chapter Ten of How to do Things with Words[1] is entitled "In saying..." v. "By saying..." and makes the distinction pretty clear. It is not correct to say that "in telling lies, Darl raised the stock price of SCO," though it would be fine to say "in telling lies, Darl forwent the moral high ground." It is correct to say that "by telling lies, Darl raised the stock price of SCO," but that doesn't describe an illocutionary act any more than "by reading Austin carefully I came to understand the difference between perlocution and illocution."
:)
Sorry, am I taking this a bit too seriously?
[1] J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1975) 121-32.
This one small quote confuses me..
"These have been improperly copied into Linux.."
If the code was copied wrong, how would it function? Could it be possible that a person wrote code similar to what another has done? I always thought that if code was wrong, the program would have problems. That could be why Linux users don't have the crash issues as Windows users. The code is not correct.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with the source code in question - we did.
winks at Darl McBride
But you can't hold a whole company responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole development system? And if the whole development system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of all operating systems in general? I put it to you, Darl - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
Leads the Linux community out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It is still a tragedy of greed, not despair. Or why does Darl and his people need to be multimillionaires instead of simple, honest-to-God millionaires?
Does it take a spine to lie for power and profit, surrounded by sycophants?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I scanned through the lists, and found quite a few single line entires in the table. I decided to look one up, specifically net/bridge/br_stp.c. Here's the offending line:
p = br->port_list;
If it wasn't for the history behind this, I'd have to laugh out loud. The only conclusion I can come to is that the majority of the claim comes from structure/union definitions in header files, and they extend it to C files wherever a structure/union member is referenced.
If I get some time, I may do an analysis of the list and determine exactly how little this case actually has to do with IP theft.
once he concludes that a different CEO candidate exists who could return value more effectively.
The purpose of a CEO is to return a value? Shit, I can do that in a line of C! They should hire me!
Bow, nigger. h
So they can sleep at night.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
SCO didn't buy anything from Novell.
SCO claims to have bought some rights from 'Santa Cruz Operations' (a.k.a. Tarantella). [In their press releases they *pretend* to be the same company, but they are *not*).
In the IBM court filings they say that they *can not find* the papers about what they bought from Santa Cruz Operations.
Because of the similarities of the names of those two companies the press hasn't cought on to the fact that SCO in fact can't show that they are the legitimate owner of any of Novells rights.
-
SCO has repeatedly and publicly claimed that System V code is in Linux.
-
They then indicated that methods and knowledge transferred to IBM by their Sys V license were in Linux.
-
Now they are claiming that methods and knowledge created and owned by IBM are in Linux, but that they are derivative works of Sys V.
This requires them to use the 'ultra-viral' definition of derivative, which is that any code which has shared a code-base with Sys V original or derivative code is sys V derivative.Are you laughing at the fools yet?!
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
You don't do what whatever crackpot on the street tells you to do if you believe you are in the right.
If somebody has an issue with your actions they need to negotiate with you or to force you to change your ways. Since SCO has not negotiated (hint: they have nothing to negotiate, they own nothing in Linux, their plan was to make money, not to correct a legal problem) then the Linux developpers should be told by a court of law that there is actually an infringement.
I will never submit to the first idiot telling me I am infringing on his rights if I believe the claim to be untrue, Linux developpers should do similarly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How can 83 lines be copied to only two lines?
sPh
They want dissension in the open source camp.
Alright, I want you to post more sentries. And tell the men their wine ration is halved. Tell the centurions any discipline problems are to be dealt with harshly!
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"
This is answered in a 1985 issue of AT&T's $ echo publicaction, which specifically says in a derivitive work, the UNIX source remains the property of AT&T, and the licensee's code remains the property of the licensee.
IOW, SCO has nothing to disallow this. Those technologies belong to IBM, period. SCO can't use them in their own product without permission from IBM, and IBM can use them as they see fit.
It is a commonly made argument by people (who tend to be left-leaning) that it is important to understand the circumstances under which someone cheats.
Here that is just stupid. Either Darl & Co. have a legit claim (which I doubt, due to their continuing refusal to actually demonstrate it), or they are trying to extort through misuse of process.
I don't care what circumstances caused them to decide to misuse process. I do care that this is causing a problem for a potentially excellent alternative to windows, a problem that is almost as big as the swamp of licencing XFree is in now.
To claim that it is important to consider motivations and circumstances is a falacy grounded in a twisted ad hominem (feel sorry for me and give me stuff) argument.
And if you want a Literary Reference... try Darl McBride as Peter Keating (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand) -- a person without the ability to create who continually hijacks the efforts of those who can.
Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
So they can sleep at night.
So you say they lie in their sleep?
SCO clearly admits that the code that IBM allegedly agreed not to share was created by IBM! I understand that they are claiming copyright protection to derivative works, but doesn't this greatly weeken their claim that IBM gave away trade secrets since this is code that IBM clearly wrote?
Until SCO can get a detailed response from IBM, it's difficult for SCO to prove that IBM gave code they wrote for AIX and Dynix/ptx to Linux, since they can't prove that IBM didn't write the code for Linux and then put it into AIX and Dynix/ptx. Without knowing who wrote each line and when and for what purpose, you can't say for sure whether or not code portions SCO highlighed are not a derivative of Linux.
Then, if any code was written with for both IBM's Unix and Linux, then which is it a derivative of? Clearly, IBM was writing code for both platforms, and some of it was bound to overlap. If a developer who wrote the code at IBM was trying to ensure it worked in both platforms, then isn't it, by SCO's definition of derivation, both a derivative of Linux and Unix?
Is there a legal precedent in copyright court cases for when product A (code in question) is a derivative of BOTH product B (AIX) and C (Linux), product B is a derivative of product D (SCO Unix), and owner of product D claims that product A cannot be a derivative of anything other than product B, and this should not have been part of product C, which it was also a derivative of?
SCO's whole ability to sue Linux users is based on copyright of the code in question. Yet both copyright and trade secrecy allegations seem to pinge on this concept of just how far derivative works can be defined.
This case seems to be defining them in contractual terms. Yet even the contractual claims cannot avoid addressing who owns the copyright of "derivative" works. To what extent does copyright law support it in complicated scenarios like this?
Add to that that user of product C (Linux binaries) has no knowledge of product B (Unix source).
When SCO and Novell copyrighted Unix source code, did either of them actually include the lines of code that IBM wrote? Was this all backported into Unix System V? If so, should we be suing SCO for infringement of the GNU since this code is clearly a derivative of Linux?
Open Standards Portal